TITLE X- CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY RULING:

1. PEOPLE VS. BALUTE YES.

FACTS:
Prosecution:
 At around 8 o’clock in the evening of March
22, 2002, SPO1 Raymundo B. Manaois was
on board his owner-type jeepney with his
wife Cristita and daughter Blesilda, and was
traversing Road 10, Tondo, Manila.
 While the vehicle was on a stop position at a
lighted area due to heavy traffic, two (2) male
persons, later on identified as Balute and a
certain Leo Blaster (Blaster), suddenly
appeared on either side of the jeepney, with
Balute poking a gun at the side of SPO1
Manaois and saying “putangina, ilabas mo!”
 Thereafter, Balute grabbed SPO1 Manaois’s
mobile phone from the latter’s chest pocket
and shot him at the left side of his torso.
 SPO1 Manaois reacted by drawing his own
firearm and alighting from his vehicle, but he
was unable to fire at the assailants as he fell
to the ground. He was brought to the hospital
where he later died.
Defense:
 Balute denied having any knowledge of the
charges against him.
 He maintained that on March 22, 2002, he
was at the shop of a certain Leticia Nicol
(Nicol) wherein he worked as a pedicab
welder from 8:00 o’clock in the morning until
10:00 o’clock in the evening, and did not
notice any untoward incident that day as he
was busy working the entire time.
 Balute’s story, and imputed liability on
Blaster and a certain Intoy.
CRIME CHARGED: Robbery with Homicide
The elements of Robbery with homicide are as
follows:
(1) the taking of personal property belonging to
another;
(2) with intent to gain;
(3) with the use of violence or intimidation against a
person; and
(4) on the occasion or by reason of the robbery, the
crime of homicide, as used in its generic sense, was
committed.
The intent to rob must precede the taking of human
life but the killing may occur before, during or after
the robbery.
Homicide is said to have been committed by reason
or on occasion of robbery if, for instance, it was
committed:
(a) to facilitate the robbery or the escape of the
culprit;
(b) to preserve the possession by the culprit of the
loot;
(c) to prevent discovery of the commission of the
robbery; or
(d) to eliminate witnesses in the commission of the
crime.
In this case, the CA correctly upheld the RTC’s
finding that the prosecution was able to establish the
fact that Balute poked his gun at SPO1 Manaois, took
the latter’s mobile phone, and thereafter, shot him,
resulting in his death despite surgical and medical
intervention. This is supported by Cristita and
Blesilda’s positive identification of Balute as the one
who committed the crime.

RTC: Convicted as charged (Treachery)

CA: Affirmed (No treachery-failed to allege in info)

ISSUE: W/N the CA correctly upheld Balute’s

conviction for Robbery with Homicide.
2. PEOPLE VS. OROSCO
FACTS:
Prosecution:
 Arca testified that on May 16, 2006, about
one o’clock in the afternoon, he went to the
store of Lourdes Yap. He was buying ice but
it was not yet hardened (frozen) so he went
home.
 At around two o’clock, he was again sent on
errand to buy ice at the same store. After
purchasing the ice, he noticed there was a
verbal tussle between Yap and two male
customers.
 The men were arguing that they were given
insufficient change and insisting they gave a
P500 bill and not P100.
 When Yap opened the door, the two men
entered the store. Thereafter, from outside the
store, Arca saw one of the men placed his left
arm around the neck of Yap and covered her
mouth with his right hand while the other
man was at her back restraining her hands.
 He recognized the man who was holding the
hands of Yap as Charlie Orosco. The
appellant was with other men who were
unidentified.
 The latter stabbed Yap at the center of her
chest. When they released her, she fell down
on the floor and died.
 Appellant then took a thick wad of bills from
the base of the religious icon or “santo” at the
altar in front of the store’s window, after
which he and the man who stabbed Yap fled
together with two other men outside who
acted as lookouts.
 Through the description made by Arca, NBI
was able to discover the identity, aside from
the appellant, of one of the perpetrators who
is Astor. However, only the appellant was
arrested as the 3 other suspects remained at
large.
 Dr. Belgira found out that the cause of death
is hemorrhagic shock secondary to a stab
wound of the trunk.
Defense:
 Appellant testified that on the date and time
of the incident, he was at his house in Bigaa
taking care of his three-year-old child while
his wife was washing clothes.
 He denied knowing Yap and his co-accused
Astor. He denied knowing Arca and he does
not know of any motive for Arca to testify
against him.
 Appellant’s wife, Teresa Magdaong-Orosco
also testified to confirm that at the time of the
incident he was at their house while she was
doing the laundry just adjacent to their house.
CRIME CHARGED: Robbery with Homicide
RTC: Convicted as charged
CA: Affirmed
In this petition, appellant reiterates the arguments
that even granting that criminal charges may be
imputed against him, it should only be robbery and
not the complex crime of robbery with homicide
considering the fact that it was not him who
stabbed Yap.
ISSUE: W/N the fact that the appellant was not the
one who stabbed the victim would render him liable
only for robbery.
RULING:
NO.
The elements of the crime of robbery with homicide
are:
(1) the taking of personal property is committed with
violence or intimidation against persons;
(2) the property taken belongs to another;
(3) the taking is done with intent to gain; and
(4) by reason of the robbery or on the occasion
thereof, homicide (used in its generic sense) is
committed.
In this case, the evidence presented by the
prosecution clearly showed that appellant acted in
conspiracy with his co-accused.
Appellant and John Doe first engaged the
unsuspecting victim in a verbal altercation until she
allowed them to enter the store. Upon getting inside,
they held the victim with John Doe wrapping his arm
around her neck while appellant held her hands at the
back. With the victim pressed between the two of
them, John Doe stabbed her once in her chest before
releasing her.
Once she fell down, appellant quickly took the
money placed at the altar inside the store and fled
together with John Doe and the two lookouts outside
the store.
All the foregoing indicates the presence of
conspiracy between appellant and his co-accused in
the perpetration of robbery and killing of the victim.
The appellant played a crucial role in the killing of
the victim to facilitate the robbery. He was behind
the victim holding her hands while John Doe grabbed
her at the neck. His act contributed in rendering the
victim without any means of defending herself when
John Doe stabbed her frontally in the chest. Having
acted in conspiracy with his co-accused, appellant is
equally liable for the killing of Yap.
(All those who took part shall be guilty of the special
complex crime of robbery with homicide whether
they actually participated in the killing, unless there
is proof that there was an endeavor to prevent the
killing.)
3. PEOPLE VS. CABBAB ambushed by accused-appellant and
Segundino Calpito.
FACTS:
 The three (3) proceeded to the crime scene
Prosecution: where they saw the dead body of Winner
Agbulos together with Eddie Quindasan
 In the morning of 22 April 1988, father and whom they mistook for dead.
son Vidal Agbulos and Winner Agbulos,
 The three sought help from the police
together with Eddie Quindasan, Felipe Abad
authorities of Pilar, Abra and returned to the
and Police Officer (PO) William Belmes,
scene of the crime where they found Eddie
went to San Isidro, Abra to attend a fiesta
Quindasan who was still alive and who
celebration.
narrated that it was Juan Cabbab, Jr. and
 Upon arrival in the area, they found out that Segundino Calpito who ambushed them and
the fiesta celebration was already over, thus, took the money.
they decided to go home.
 Eddie Quindasan was brought to
 After taking their lunch and on their way the Abra Provincial Hospital but died the
home, they were met by accused-appellant following day. (In short, both Eddie and
Juan Cabbab, Jr. and Segundino Calpito who Winner still died).
invited them to play pepito, a local version of
the game of russian poker. Defense:
 Only Winner Agbulos and Eddie Quindasan
 Appellant claims that in the morning of April
played pepito with the group of accused-
22, 1988, he went to Palao, Baddek,
appellant.
Bangued, Abra to visit his friends Romeo,
 Around 3:00 oclock p.m., PO William Demetrio and Restituto, all surnamed
Belmes told Winner Agbulos and Eddie Borreta.
Quindasan that they should be
 He stayed there almost the entire day and left
going. About 3:30 p.m., Winner Agbuloss
only at around 5:00 p.m. He arrived home in
group wrapped-up the game and were set for
Kimmalasag, San Isidro, Abra at around 5:30
home together with his group. Winner
p.m.
Agbulos won the game.
 He declared that his co-accused Calpito was
 While walking on their way home, PO
not with him that day. He likewise averred
William Belmes, who was behind Winner
that he did not know prosecution witnesses’
Agbulos and Eddie Quindasan picking-up
PO William Belmes and Vidal Agbulos nor
guava fruits from a tree, saw accused-
did he know of any motive for them to testify
appellant, Segundino Calpito, accused
against him.
Segundino Calpito and a companion running
 Appellants co-accused Calpito denied having
up a hill.
committed the crimes charged. He testified
 Suddenly, he heard gunshots and saw Winner
that at around 8:30 a.m. of April 22, 1988, he
Agbulos and Eddie Quindasan, who were
went fishing at Kimmalasag, San Isidro, Abra
then walking ahead of the group, hit by the
until 4:00 a.m. of the following day.
gunfire.
 A Paraffin test was conducted on the
 PO William Belmes dove into a canal to save
appellant which yield negative.
himself from the continuous gunfire of
 Additional: Appellant avers that the
accused-appellant.
witnesses failed to identify him as the
 PO William Belmes ran towards Vidal
perpetrator of the crime.
Agbulos and Felipe Abad, who were walking
behind the group, and informed the two that CRIME CHARGED: Double Murder and
Winner Agbulos and Eddie Quindasan were Attempted Murder with Robbery
RTC: Guilty of two crimes.
(1) Robbery with double homicide
(2) Attempted murder
Accused Segundino Calpito is acquitted for
insufficiency of evidence.
CA: Guilty of the special complex crime of Robbery
with Homicide and separate crime of attempted
murder.
ISSUE: W/N the honorable court of appeals gravely
erred in rejecting the defense of alibi interposed by
the accused-appellant, despite the fact that the
version is more credible and supported by evidence.
RULING:
NO.
The witnesses were able to positively identify the
appellants as the perpetrators of the crime.
Furthermore, the negative findings of said test do not
conclusively show that a person did not discharge a
firearm at the time the crime was committed.
As George de Lara of the NBI stated in his testimony
before the trial court, if a person applies cosmetics on
his hands before the cast is taken, gunpowder residue
would not be found in that persons hands. He also
testified that certain factors could contribute to the
negative result of a paraffin test such as perspiration,
humidity or the type of firearm used. In fine, a
finding that the paraffin test on the person of the
appellant yielded negative results is not conclusive
evidence to show that he indeed had not fired a gun.
The elements of the crime of robbery with homicide
are:
(1) the taking of personal property is committed with
violence or intimidation against persons;
(2) the property taken belongs to another;
(3) the taking is done with intent to gain; and
(4) by reason of the robbery or on the occasion
thereof, homicide (used in its generic sense) is
committed.
In Robbery with Homicide, so long as the intention
of the felon is to rob, the killing may occur before,
during or after the robbery.
It is immaterial that death would supervene by mere
accident, or that the victim of homicide is other than
the victim of robbery, or that two or more persons are
killed.
Once a homicide is committed by reason or on the
occasion of the robbery, the felony committed is the
special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide.
Here, the prosecution adduced proof beyond
reasonable doubt that appellant, having lost to
Winner Agbulos in the game of poker, intended to
divest Agbulos of his winnings amounting
to P20,000.00. In pursuit of his plan to rob Agbulos
of his winnings, appellant shot and killed him as well
as his companion, Eddie Quindasan.
The penalty for the crime of Robbery with Homicide
is Reclusion Perpetua to death. The presence of the
aggravating circumstance of Treachery warrants the
imposition of death. However, RP should be
imposed.
The two courts below erred in convicting appellant
of the separate crime of attempted murder for the
shooting of PO William Belmes. Attempted
homicide or attempted murder committed during
or on the occasion of the robbery, as in this case,
is absorbed in the crime of Robbery with
Homicide which is a special complex crime that
remains fundamentally the same regardless of the
number of homicides or injuries committed in
connection with the robbery.
4. PEOPLE VS. SUYU
FACTS:
Prosecution:
 At around 7:15 in the evening on January 13,
1996, Clarissa Angeles, a third-year student
of St. Paul University, was with her
boyfriend, William Ferrer.
 They were eating snacks inside a pick-up
truck parked in a vacant lot near the COA and
the DECS/DEPED in Tuguegarao, about
fifteen meters from the highway.
 Clarissa was seated on the passenger’s side,
while William was behind the wheel.
 The two were alarmed when they saw
shadows of persons near the truck. Clarissa
suggested to William that they leave.
 The latter opened the window on his side
halfway to check if there were persons
outside.
 Suddenly, a man, who turned out to be
Rommel Macarubbo, appeared in front of the
truck, pointed a gun at them and said: “This
is a holdup. If you will start the engine of the
car, I will shoot you.”
 Thereafter, another man, who turned out to be
Willy Suyu, lifted the lock on William’s side
and entered the pick-up.
 Clarissa told William to give everything so
that they would not be harmed. Willy Suyu
then took Ferrer’s wallet which contained
around P150.00.
 A third man, who turned out to be Francis
Cainglet, took Clarissa’s jewelry valued at
around P2,500.00 and cash amounting to
P10.00.
 Thereafter, Willy Suyu clubbed William and
dragged him out of the truck. Fortunately,
William was able to escape and immediately
went to the police station to report the
incident.
 Meanwhile, Willy Suyu lifted the lock of the
pick-up truck at Clarissa’s side. Macarubbo
then opened the door.
 They dragged the girl to a hilly place. She
pleaded for mercy as she was brought to a
house near a muddy place.
 At that point, a man, who turned out to be
Rodolfo Suyu, the half-brother of Willy
Suyu, came out of the house. Willy Suyu,
Cainglet and Macarubbo pushed Clarissa
towards Rodolfo Suyu.
 The latter pushed Clarissa and said: “You
stay there because I will be the first
one.” Rodolfo Suyu then started embracing
and kissing Clarissa and fondling her breast.
 She felt a knife, flashlight and pliers at the
perpetrator’s back. Pretending that she was
submitting to him, she suddenly reached for
the knife. They briefly struggled and Clarissa
kicked his groin.
 She tried to run, but she stumbled and she was
grabbed by the hair. He then punched her
stomach twice. She pleaded to the three
others for help, but the three did nothing.
 Rodolfo Suyu passed Clarissa to
Cainglet. Clarissa again pleaded, “Please do
not hurt me, do not kill me and do not rape
me. I am willing to join your group.”
 Cainglet and Rodolfo Suyu then brought her
to the top of the hill near the Capitol. She
attempted to shout but she feared for her life
as a knife was thrust against her.
 Thereafter, Rodolfo Suyu Rodolfo Suyu
inserted two fingers inside her. He then
commented to Cainglet, who was still
pinning her down, “Pare, this is still a
virgin.” Thereafter, with the aid of his two
fingers, he inserted his penis inside her
vagina.
 Cainglet raped her next who was was able to
insert half an inch of his penis into her vagina.
 Cainglet suggested that she be released for
ransom. The two lookouts again yelled,
“They are coming.” Then a beam of light
illumined them and engines from vehicles
became audible.
 Thereafter, two vehicles arrived from about
10 to 15 meters away from the pick-up
truck. After pleading for mercy and
promising not to report them to the police
authorities, she was allowed by the culprits to
leave.
  Clarissa was able to escape and get to the
house of an old man who helped her and
brought her to the hospital.
 Then, she was brought to the police station
where she met again her boyfriend. At first,
she denied being sexually abused because of
her boyfriend.
 But she submitted herself to be examined and
it was found out that, indeed, she was raped.
 One of the accused, Macarubbo, offered
himself to be a state witness.
Defense:
 Rodolfo Suyu denied the charge against
him. He also interposed the defense of
alibi. He declared that, on January 13, 1996,
he was in their house at Alimannao,
Tuguegarao City, taking care of his three
young children, the youngest of whom was
five months old. He never left their house in
the evening.
 Cainglet declared that he was employed as a
security guard inspector by the Night Hawk
Security Investigation Agency with principal
office in Quezon City. He claimed that he
was tortured by the Police officers to extort
confession. Thereafter, Clarissa identified
him as one of the men who raped her. From
then on, he was detained.
 Macarubbo denied the charge against him
and said that he doesn’t know the accused.
 Willy Suyu posited an alibi and testified that
on the day of the alleged robbery and rape, he
was in their house at Dodan, Peñablanca,
Cagayan, about 45 minutes by tricycle from
Centro, Tuguegarao, Cagayan.
CRIME CHARGED: Robbery with rape
RTC: Convicted as charged
CA: Affirmed
- insofar as the accused-appellant ROMMEL
MACARUBBO is concerned, he is hereby
sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty
of from Eight (8) years and One (1) day of
prision mayor, in its medium period, as
minimum, to Fifteen (15) years of reclusion
temporal
Additional defense:
Appellants assert that Clarissa was not able to
identify any of them at the city jail and succeeded in
identifying them only after she was coached by SPO4
Cudal. They contend that Clarissa was declared by
Dr. Pintucan to be ambulatory and coherent with no
signs of cardio-respiratory distress, proof that she
was not forcibly and sexually assaulted. It was also
discovered that there was no evidence of forcible
assault despite the insertion of one finger on her
cervix. Appellants argue that the trial court erred in
admitting in evidence the extrajudicial confession of
appellant Macarubbo.
Appellants, moreover, aver that the testimony of
Clarissa is postmarked with inconsistencies. She
executed no less than five sworn statements before
the MTC.
RULING:
Clarissa’s testimony is consistent and credible.
While it is true that the victim initially did not reveal
to the authorities the fact that she was raped after the
robbery, this does not cast doubt on her testimony for
it is not uncommon for a rape victim right after her
ordeal to remain mum about what really
transpired. Jurisprudence has established that delay
in revealing the commission of rape is not an
indication of a fabricated charge, and the same is
rendered doubtful only if the delay was unreasonable
and unexplained.
Appellants, likewise, contend that Clarissa was
coached by SPO4 Cudal during the police line-up,
while Rommel had to be pointed by the other
detainees. She even asked them to show their
tongues so that she could ascertain whether they were
the ones who molested her.
The arguments of appellants do not persuade. The
victim recounted that there were lights emanating
from the nearby DECS (now DepEd) and COA
buildings, and several residences. The place was
bright enough for her to see the faces of her
assailants, only that she did not know their names.
Familiarity with the physical features of a person is
an acceptable way for proper identification.
Related ruling sa topic:
Conspiracy to commit the crime was also correctly
appreciated by the trial court. Indeed, “at the time of
the commission of the crime, accused acted in
concert, each doing his part to fulfill their common
design to rob the victim and although only two of
them, through force and intimidation, raped
Clarissa, the failure of Macarubbo and Willy Suyu to
prevent its commission although they were capable
would make their act to be the act of all.” We have
previously ruled that once conspiracy is established
between several accused in the commission of the
crime of robbery, they would all be equally culpable
for the rape committed by any of them on the
occasion of the robbery, unless any of them proves
that he endeavored to prevent the other from
committing rape.
To be convicted of robbery with rape, the following
elements must concur:
(1) the taking of personal property is committed with
violence or intimidation against persons;
(2) the property taken belongs to another;
(3) the taking is characterized by intent to gain or
animus lucrandi;
(4) the robbery is accompanied by rape.
The intent to rob must precede the rape. In robbery
with rape, the intention of the felony is to rob and the
felony is accompanied by rape. The rape must be
contemporaneous with the commission of the
robbery.
Aside from raping the victim, appellant Rodolfo
Suyu inserted his finger in her sexual
organ. Appellant Suyu, thus, committed sexual
assault as defined and penalized in Article 266-A,
paragraph 2 of Republic Act No. 8353. Also, aside
from Rodolfo Suyu, Cainglet raped the
victim. Nevertheless, there is only one single and
indivisible felony of robbery with rape and any
crimes committed on the occasion or by reason of the
robbery are merged and integrated into a single and
indivisible felony of robbery with rape.